Also again: when thimerosal is metabolized by the body, the mercury it creates is ethylmercury, which does not bioaccumulate (the body excretes it). Finally, even if the mercury in the flu vaccine did bioaccumulate, the amount of thimerosal in the flu vaccine is so small that being concerned about it is simply silly. A typical flu shot contains approximately 25 micrograms of mercury. The FDA's recommended daily limit on the intake of mercury is 0.4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.

I wasn't contesting the facts, was just identifying where I got my info. I like your explanation better, thanks. I will keep watch though, part of my job as a medical professional.

Again: Thimerosal is a molecule that has an atom of mercury as a constitutive element. It is therefore not really proper to say that the vaccine "contains mercury". You cannot treat a molecule with an atom of mercury in its structure the same as elemental mercury, which is what the quote you give above is trying to do.

...

Frankly, I think all the attention that some people pay to the mercury in the flu shot is pretty ridiculous. Healthwise, most people should be worrying about things that are much more pressing, such as the amount of sodium and fat they're getting every single day, instead of the amount of mercury they're getting in their flu shot, which you get only once a year.

Again: Thimerosal is a molecule that has an atom of mercury as a constitutive element. It is therefore not really proper to say that the vaccine "contains mercury". You cannot treat a molecule with an atom of mercury in its structure the same as elemental mercury, which is what the quote you give above is trying to do.

...

Frankly, I think all the attention that some people pay to the mercury in the flu shot is pretty ridiculous. Healthwise, most people should be worrying about things that are much more pressing, such as the amount of sodium and fat they're getting every single day, instead of the amount of mercury they're getting in their flu shot, which you get only once a year.

The sodium and fat they ingest or sodium chloride are personal choices,if they so choose not to ingest these,again a choice THEY make,why should wether or not you take a shot be different? You want to kill yourself slowly,you have that right Remember when doctors told pregnant women thalidomide was safe?,Viox? Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America. The accidental cause is more likely abuse or overdose,the only difference between the two above deaths is the amount of time it takes to die. One is immediate,the other slow and painful

You people don't have an interest in protecting the health of others with this mandatory flu vaccine crap,your interest is for self preservation at the expense of others freedoms to choose

« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 07:02:46 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

That event changed the standards and methods of pharmaceutical appoval processes for pregnant women forever. You can't carry on blaming medical science for something that it corrected and took permanent corrective action over.

Furthermore, thalidomide is now being very effectively used to treat myeloma. Thanks to science

Vioxx was and still would be a very effective product. Many patients are really pissed off that it was withdrawn. The downside was 6% increase in heart attack risk over placebo with 18 months continuous high-dose usage - a risk that occasional users of the drug with acute debilitating arthritis pain (like my father) will happily accept if they know about it and how to manage it. Other companies with similar acting drugs did not even study that risk and so got away with no adverse publicity leaving MSD to take the flack. The mistake MSD made was to suppress the findings initially - irony of which is that if they hadn't tried to hush it the drug might still be available for use in safe dosages.

Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.

What is the source of this data please? My information is that heart disease tops the list of causes of death.

You may be talking about "accidental deaths" as a category - which is an order of magnitude lower than non-accidental causes. And of the accidental prescription deaths the vast majority are due specifically to pain killers.

Quote

Misuse or abuse of prescription drugs, including opioid analgesic pain relievers, is responsible formuch of the increase in drug poisoning deaths

William.....the point I was making about thalidomide was that it was unsafe for certain uses,tell the mothers of children with birth defects that it is now used for other purposes

The second point death by food or drugs,overdose in BOTH cases(or otherwise) was it was a PERSONAL choice made to or not to take either in excess.

Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

I said something about the ethics. I introduced it because it has to be balanced against the biased uninformed anti-pharma hysteria going round. Prescriptions (in my country) have dosage instructions clearly printed on the bottle.

Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

I said something about the ethics. I introduced it because it has to be balanced against the biased uninformed anti-pharma hysteria going round. Prescriptions (in my country) have dosage instructions clearly printed on the bottle.

The American and Canadian Governments used TB,smallpox and influenza to destroy populations of indigenous. Why is it now that they are concerned about nurses getting flu vaccines? Because it could kill them?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The American and Canadian Governments used TB,smallpox and influenza to destroy populations of indigenous. Why is it now that they are concerned about nurses getting flu vaccines? Because it could kill them?

The sodium and fat they ingest or sodium chloride are personal choices,if they so choose not to ingest these,again a choice THEY make,why should wether or not you take a shot be different?

Do you really not see the difference? Because no one is going to catch obesity or high blood pressure from anyone else. If you want to kill yourself, I mainly don't care. But if you are going to do it by burning down the whole neighborhood, then I definitely have a problem with it.

Quote

You people don't have an interest in protecting the health of others with this mandatory flu vaccine crap,your interest is for self preservation at the expense of others freedoms to choose

The fact that you worry now because it may kill you or a loved one.....and you need someone to blame if that happens. So why allow an exemption at all for religious or medical reasons? Take the shot or be fired,no reason or excuse. You have allergy to eggs,to bad,Gullian-Barr syndrome,tough luck,religious reasons,no,you are all fired.

So what you are saying is you respect the rights of these people but not the people who just say NO,or do you agree ALL FIRED?

If the protection of people in care of the hospital are your only concern,there should be no exemptions period.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 05:31:25 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

12 M, you're acting like a tard. Most of your last post has been said already. And the stuff that hasn't - like the little gem about needing to blame someone - is insulting and more than a little stupid. I'll join the conversation again when there is something worth responding to.

Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Yet what area the risks really? Sure if you do anything to a large enough group of people something will go wrong but it is the measure of the problem that counts. For healthy people the risks are minimal compared with the risk of disease. Following on from the ridiculous false claims of autism caused by the MMR vaccine we had children in the UK dying of measles - a disease that is avoided by a vaccine. That was very sad but, now that the truth has come out, people are now using vaccination and these deaths are in the past.

The fact is that people ignore the actual risk and act on the basis of the most tiny risk (say avoid an immunisation) whilst driving a car, an occupation with a much, much higher risk of death. Avoiding immunisation by the hospital workers, on the other hand could cost some of the patients in the hospital their lives.

We have to understand risk and act on the real risks of things and not perceives risks.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

AFAIK, no one on this thread has said all hospital workers should be vaccinated or fired, no exceptions, full stop. Why do you keep asking the question, then?

There are sound medical reasons why some health care providers won't or can't be immunized; in such cases hospital administrators have to decide if an exemption is warranted. As you and others have pointed out, it's impossible to eliminate all possible paths of infection, but it's certainly possible to minimize them. Having as many staff as is practical immunized at least provides a degree of herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) within the hospital and greater community.

I don't think religious objections to vaccination are valid, because health care workers should be putting the physical welfare of their patients before their own religious faith. But ultimately that call is up to the administrators who have to decide such cases.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

No there are legitimate medical reasons, called contraindications, for not receiving a vaccine. When compliance with vaccines is high, the immune persons slow the spread of the disease, protecting the unvaccinated from being exposed to it. This is called herd immunity. When compliance with vaccines is low, herd immunity falls apart and outbreaks can occur more easily.

Workers who document a legitimate medical reason for not getting a vaccine are exempt from getting fired, much as you are exempt from getting fired if you have a legitimate medical reason for missing work. If you were to skip work tomorrow and then claim on Wednesday that you did it for religious reasons, you probably would not have the same exemption. Of course, science is all about testing hypotheses, so feel free to verify that.

Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

AFAIK, no one on this thread has said all hospital workers should be vaccinated or fired, no exceptions, full stop. Why do you keep asking the question, then?

There are sound medical reasons why some health care providers won't or can't be immunized; in such cases hospital administrators have to decide if an exemption is warranted. As you and others have pointed out, it's impossible to eliminate all possible paths of infection, but it's certainly possible to minimize them. Having as many staff as is practical immunized at least provides a degree of herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) within the hospital and greater community.

I don't think religious objections to vaccination are valid, because health care workers should be putting the physical welfare of their patients before their own religious faith. But ultimately that call is up to the administrators who have to decide such cases.

It was not just the nurses they wanted to vaccinate it was every employee at the hospital

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

No there are legitimate medical reasons, called contraindications, for not receiving a vaccine. When compliance with vaccines is high, the immune persons slow the spread of the disease, protecting the unvaccinated from being exposed to it. This is called herd immunity. When compliance with vaccines is low, herd immunity falls apart and outbreaks can occur more easily.

Workers who document a legitimate medical reason for not getting a vaccine are exempt from getting fired, much as you are exempt from getting fired if you have a legitimate medical reason for missing work. If you were to skip work tomorrow and then claim on Wednesday that you did it for religious reasons, you probably would not have the same exemption. Of course, science is all about testing hypotheses, so feel free to verify that.

I clarified in a later post accidental deaths

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Sometimes the government has to take action in response to people's irrationality. Not long ago, for example, NOAA (the agency that I happen to work for) issued a public statement stating that there was no evidence for the existence of mermaids.

I am suddenly getting flashbacks to the 2012 apoca-lulz. I think even NASA had to make several press releases explaining why there was no planet hurtling towards the earth that was going to destroy us in December.